Them and us - why posh Tories who claim to care about social mobility haven't got a clue

[breadandbutterfly]

...and are patronising bastards to boot.

See:

www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2011/apr/09/social-mobility-suzanne-moore

Esp enjoy the comment at 9 April 2011 9:32AM -

"The Camerons know how to 'work' their connections, too. David Cameron got his first job as a researcher for Tim Rathbone, his godfather and Conservative MP for Lewes.

Three months later he went to Hong Kong to work at the conglomerate Jardine Matheson - Daddy was stockbroker to the chairman, providing a fast-track into the business world.

When the young Cameron was due to attend a job interview at Conservative Central Office, a phone call was received from Buckingham Palace. "I understand you are to see David Cameron," said the caller. "I am ringing to tell you that you are about to meet a truly remarkable young man."

It has been speculated that the mystery call was from Captain Sir Alastair Aird, Equerry to the Queen Mother and husband of Cameron's godmother. The Airds vigorously denied it. Others have suggested the caller might have been Sir Brian McGrath, a family friend who was private secretary to Prince Philip. But he, too, though named as a referee for the job, denies it firmly".

You couldn't make it up could you? They're all in it together.
"

Yes - but good parents will do everything within their means to help their child - especially when their dc has some SN.

IMO - teachers in mainstream schools cope better with less SN pupils in a class. They have more time for each pupil. It's often very stressful for the parent to have a SN dc in a mainstream school. - I know several who found moving their child to a school which could adequately support their needs, a relief.

I also know some parents who are very happy with the SN provision at their local state school. Good parents act with the interests of their dc - not ideology.

Who said this about Oxbridge intake?

"The problem lies with the state education system. It's their responsibility to prepare able students for Oxbridge, not Oxbridge's responsibility to make up the shortfall in academic progress."

Absobloodylutely.

those saying that SN attending private schools is an unfair disadvantage - theoretically, in legal terms this is available to ALL SN children. A child is entitled to a suitable education. On the whole, a state school does not provide that.

My dd1 has the same disability on paper as swc's ds. but they are very different children, and what is suitable for them educationally is very different too. my dd1's private SN school woudl not be a suitable placement (probably) for swc's ds.

the system is rotten to the core, though, as we had to jump through several hoops to prove that dd1 was 1) not learning at her previous placement (the school kept saying she was making progress, while keeping no data, and having no evidence this was the case. when we pointed this out, they said that our expectations of progress were too high ) and 2) was actually capable of learning the things we said she was capable of learning (those low expectations again!) - basically, the fact that dd1 was not making progress was blamed on dd1, not on the school's methods. input and curriculum.

it all comes back to parents (again!) in that we had to fight for 4 years (she is only 6 now, but it has been obvious for all that time whivh school she needed to go to) to get ehr into a school which enables her to learn anything at all.

this route is open to all - if your child's placement is not suitable for whatever reason, then technically speaking you can have the LA move your child - to another state school, or to a state SN school, or to a private SN school if no state palces available. and private SN schools come in a wide range of ability bandings too, including private mainstream schools who are willing to go the extra mile to ensure a child is comfortable and happy enough to learn.

so quit with the "unfair disadvantage" horseshit. what my d1 gets at her private SN school is not rocket science - it is just a properly individualised and targetted curriculum, not a hastily differentiated "well the rest of the class are doing this, so X can do it this way" piece of crap. it is something that shuld be available to all (and is, theoretically), jsut as the educational opportunities dd2 is getting at her ms private school should be available to all. just because they aren't, does not mean I will sacrifice either of my dds' education. dd1's fees are paid by the LA (there is no way we could afford them).

oh, just to add - when we challenged dd1's previous school to prove what she was learning, their comeback was "it depends on what you mean by learning"

yeah, good retort. really impressed us, I can tell you.

Goose

"In some cases I would "blame the parents" those who are more interested in realty shit on TV or what stick insect Beckham is doing in OK magazine than reading to their kids and getting involved with the school. Those that dont check up to see homework is done or cannot be bothered to turn up on open day."

So how the hell is that blaming the children ffs."

It's blaming the parents: condemning the children for the parents' failings.

You may find it trite: it doesn't mean it isn't true.

I ask again how the above statement is blaming the children, if you read it that way maybe it is you that is lacking an education or maybe your just being obtuse.

The point is silverfrog that is exactly my experience for NT children too, we do it this way and you are wrong if you don't get it it and we'll do nothing to help but just you dare as a parent suggest an alternative or try and give your child a head start, we will take it out on your child by then refusing to teach them anything at all.

It's not the childrens fault new wave but you are raging against quite a machine, it's understandable those who aren't being paid to deal with the situation lose patience pretty quick and just want to buy their distance via housing or school.

Newwave: it's you who's being utterly, utterly obtuse. I mean, beyond obtuse.

I am not accusing you of blaming the children, I'm accusing you of condemning them to failure because of the parents' behaviour.

ie leaving them to a life of failure by blaming the parents rather than demanding that state education lift them up despite their parents' behaviour.

Really, it's difficult to put it more clearly. Best not to FFS when you really are totally and completely in the wrong and don't understand.

I also suggest you don't complain about being called obtuse unless you want your own post reported.

Oooh! Ladies! Please!
The deep distrust of State education is largely promoted by those who haven't been near a State school for some time, I think. I my 6mths attending school with anxious SN dd, I was surprised at the sheer hard graft of the teachers, most of whom didn't see the inside of the staff room all day. A huge amount of help was given by Teaching Assistants and the attached Sure Start Centre.

you can think that all you like, alice (re: not being near a state school for some time) - I would hazard a guess that I have spent a fair bit longer then most posters on this thread deciphering the state education, talking it through wiht both teachers and education officials, and discussing exactly how (either of) my dd might fit in...

over the last 4 years, I have spent more time than I care to remember deliberating over school placement - a decision never to be entered into lightly, imo, and each of the schools that have either been considered for or actually attended by dd1 has been thoroughly researched and trialled extensively.

the general state of State education in this country leaves me cold.

"The deep distrust of State education is largely promoted by those who haven't been near a State school for some time"

You must be joking -- why do you think I go without just about bloody everything so my children can go private?

I'm sure the teachers do work hard. I know a lot of teachers. I don't think "teachers not working hard" is a complaint that's been made here.

Ahh - the old 'the teachers work so hard' defense.

They do.

And some of them even believe in educating children.

However, many of them are 'confused' with current dogma.

& Yes OP, I haven't read the whole thread but those sharp elbowed middle classes are repugnant in the way they use their connections to advance their children's lives.

They should ship them out to the nearest salt mine.

Really. The bastards.

Perhaps I'll just shoot myself right here and now. That'll help poor children fer sure.

It will goose, for then they will be poor awfuls, thus disadvantaged & given all the glittering prizes they justly deserve for coming for a lowly household.

& damn them if they protest they should be judged on merit, for they know not what they say, for they have not been educated to a level by which they may engage in debate.

But God bless the meek, for they shall be patronised into a university education, whether they can afford £9,000 a year or not.

And up shalleth be down, and in shalleth be out, and topsy shalleth be turvy, for ever and ever, Amen.

Amen.

The Lord blesseth the topsy turvy for their heads be up their arse & they may never see the light.

heh heh

Without doubt many private schools are better than state.

We have reasonably good social mobility in this country compared to many.

Most parents of all income groups try to do their best for their children and that's only natural - that might be getting your son a job on the shop floor at 16 where his father works or helping in u niversity holidays get work experience and even in relatively low paid fields like journalism which seem to depend more on connections than the professions getting them unpaid internships. I don't think Labour or the Coaltion are any better or worse than anyone else at that.

To throw a shiny new spanner into the works: I suspect I was unusual in not knowing GCSE's and A levels are now assessed on a different scale to when some of us did them . So years ago, the top 10% got A, next 10% B etc. Nowadays, they are marked against criteria, so if a candidate answers all correctly, s/he will get an A no matter what all the other candidates get. So it's now theoretically possible for all candidates t get A where it wasn't possible before.

Yes, although there is nothing to stop a university asking to see your individual precise marks. I don't know why they don't.

aliceliddell I think the old system is better because people tend not to get more intelligent, but exams can get easier.

AFAIK many professional bodies (ICAEW being one) still mark exams on this basis.

We have reasonably good social mobility in this country compared to many.

False.

OECD: UK has worse social mobility record than other developed countries

The chances of a child from a poor family enjoying higher wages and better education than their parents is lower in Britain than in other western countries, the OECD says

Children from poor families in Britain have a greater chance of struggling on low incomes than their counterparts in the west's other rich countries, the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) said today.

Highlighting the UK's lack of social mobility, the Paris-based thinktank said the chances of a young person from a less well-off family enjoying higher wages or getting a higher level of education than their parents was "relatively low".

www.guardian.co.uk/business/2010/mar/10/oecd-uk-worst-social-mobility